The problem is that both "gay" and "Catholic" are ambiguous terms.Yes, it is ambiguous whether or not the gay person is chaste or not. More importantly, both terms are, unfortunately, ambiguous about whether a person is loyal or docile toward the Magisterium. As lay people, we can't say a person is, or isn't Catholic, no matter how much that person dissents from the Church. The word "gay" also carries an additional negative stigma, as it was signaled by the Holy Father when he referred to the "gay lobby." My first impression upon hearing "gay Catholic" is the rainbow sash movement. It may be a mistaken one. If so, I would love to hear that most gay Catholics are not sympathetic to the rainbow sash movement, but are instead docile toward the Church's teachings.

So, I think we can borrow from the Holy Father in making a distinction between gay as a temptation, and gay lobby as something opposed to the Magisterium. We hope that they are chaste, but that is a matter between them and their confessors. But it is entirely legitimate to wonder whether a gay Catholic is loyal to the Magisterium. Neither word tells us that this is so. Catholic is a very watered down word with respect to orthodox belief, and a mere sampling of the news media will leave most with the impression that identifying as gay means a person is hostile toward the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So the question regarding a gay Catholic is not whether or not he or she is living chastely, but rather whether of not he or she accepts, and embraces the Church's teachings, which is the Word of God, that is, Jesus Himself.

In this, I'm thinking no differently about gay Catholics than other Catholics. I wonder, because the Church contains so many who have accepted modernism, whether or not a particular Catholic is orthodox. I say this not because I think dissenters are less human than the rest, but rather to identify the sort of evangelization needed within the Church.
What do you think?

I think we're roughly on the same page. As a general rule, I don't make it my business to inquire into somebody's sex life. If somebody tells me they are gay and Catholic, I don't assume "Rainbow Sash" and I don't assume "Courage member". I assume nothing till I have more information, precisely because of the ambiguity of the word "gay" in modern English. It may mean "same-sex attracted" or it may mean sexually active. It may even mean "defiantly sexually active" (though even that is not a given since catechesis in the Church is sometimes so bad that a gay Catholic may be under the sincere impression that the Church's sexual teaching is one of the many things that "went out with Vatican II" in favor of the all-excusing appeal to "primacy of conscience" for whatever you want to do with your groin today). If so, a person may be a sexually active homosexual (or, far more often, heterosexual) who is oblivious to the fact that the Church still teaches that sexual intercourse is intended only for lifelong, heterosexual marriage and nothing else.

("Primacy of conscience" is the all-excusing buzzword on the Left just as "prudential judgment' is the all-excusing buzzword on the Right. Both mean, "Feel free to blow off the clear, obvious, and authoritative teaching of the Church if it harshes your mellow." Lots of people have been indoctrinated into both methods for ignoring the Church's teaching and have no idea they've been sold a bill of goods. Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by ignorance.)

As a general rule, when I meet somebody for the first time, I don't feel an immediate impulse to regale them with my sexual history. Nor do I find that most people, gay or straight, feel a similar impulse.

For similar reasons, I don't have a burning need to follow up a first handshake with somebody by asking, "So, are you gay or straight? And if so, are you sexually active? A Catholic? Please fill me in on all the details." Thus, I have often found that I remain blissfully unaware that the person I am talking to is gay, or a fornicator, or what have you, for years. My mama raised me not to probe into such questions. Most other people's mamas did too. On those rare occasion when the question of somebody's sexual orientation and religious affiliation does come up, I tend to respond to such personal revelations only when the person A) speaks of it in order say "I'm same sex attracted/gay and I'm trying to live the Church's teaching" (in which case I say, "Bully for you! We need more witnesses like you!") or B) when somebody says "I'm gay and to hell with the Church's teaching" (in which case, I say, "I decline to endorse your wrong opinion. I believe the Church's teaching and here is why..."

As a general rule, if somebody is disposed to inform me that they are gay and Catholic, they usually make super clear in about one nanosecond after this revelation whether they agree with the Church's teaching and are trying to live it or not. It's not generally hard to figure out since people who out themselves as gay and Catholic usually do so precisely in order to make clear where they stand on that question.

My basic approach to people who are sexually active is to point out what the Church actually says if I sense they honestly believe that "primacy of conscience" means "You can ignore the Church's teaching". On some occasions, this is still news. One most occasions, the response is "Who cares?" and the sexually active homosexual is here to evangelize and demand approval, not tolerance (which they already have). My take on tolerance is basically that I think laws against homosex are stupid since the state mechanisms required to enforce them would be massively intrusive. I have no interest in telling homosexuals what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their home, and certainly not with using the armed might of the state to interfere. Not all sins should be crimes. At the same time, I think laws licensing the fantasy of gay "marriage" are also stupid for the same reason I think law licensing the fantasy of "marriage" to a roller coaster, warehouse, dolphin, the Eiffel Tower, or one's self are pernicious. Redefining "marriage" to mean "Whatever relationship we like" is another way of saying "marriage" is a word with no meaning at all. Draining the word "marriage" of all meaning is a poor way of defending marriage and the family. Voiding marriage and the family of all meaning is a short and quick ticket to civilizational destruction, since the family is the building block of civilization.

With gay Catholics who make clear that they are seeking to live out the Church's teaching, I think we should be abundantly encouraging and little else. In this, I agree with Michael Voris about the cross chaste gay Catholics bear:

There are intramural squabbles among chaste gay Catholics about things like whether to self-identify as "gay" and so forth (some don't think it's a big deal, others feel it is marking oneself by one's disordered sexual appetites and ask, reasonably enough, if straight Catholics go around identifying themselves as "lustful" Catholics. I choose, as somebody for whom this particular disordered appetite is one of the few I have never experienced, to absent myself from that bit of inside baseball and to simply try to support any gay Catholic who is trying to be faithful to Jesus and his Church. I believe that the cross such folk bear is heavy enough without Catholics tying up heavy burdens for the backs of their struggling gay brethren and not lifting a finger to help. So my attitude is, "If you are attempting fidelity, that's enough on your plate. I'm not going to ask any more than that or cross-examine you to make sure you're pure enough." I know I hate it when the Inquisitors come out off the woodwork to accuse me when I confess a weakness or struggle with some sin or temptation, so I refuse to do it to others. If somebody tells me they are striving for chastity, I just take them at their word.

Comments

Desire or consent does not change the nature of a demeaning sexual act.

Posted by pay on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 12:46 PM (EDT):

BillS,

The State can mandate square circles. They will never exist though. Fiction is fiction.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 11:06 AM (EDT):

Those who have been damaged by sexual abuse, seek to damage others with sexual abuse, and use lies to cover it up.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 11:01 AM (EDT):

Well, Ted. What can I say?

It seems that you are the one with a problem. Not me.

Posted by Dean on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 11:00 AM (EDT):

That which is legal is not moral truth.

It’s really disappointing that a liberal such as yourself regards the government as the Imprimatur of truth.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:56 AM (EDT):

Laws form an illegitimate and genocidal government are not evidence of truth.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:53 AM (EDT):

The verdict is in on gay sex. It’s legal and it’s nobody else’s business if it is done in private between two consenting adults. That ship has sailed. If people have a problem with that, it is their problem, not the problem of the people they are judging.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:42 AM (EDT):

Bill S, that is ironic because it was a Latin Master putting his hand in Richard Dawkin’s jock strap that drove him insane, just as it was your sexual sin in the late 1960s that drove you insane.

Neither of you have any idea where truth lies due to those experiences that divorced you from the source of truth, which is God, but thanks for the idea for a blog posting on why science by atheists will always be flawed.

Posted by Dean on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:41 AM (EDT):

Anal sex is destructive of bodily tissues. There is nothing subjectively dignified about hurting someone to achieve sexual pleasure for yourself regardless of their consent.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:36 AM (EDT):

the damaged and mentally ill Richard Dawkins

Ted,

You in no position to judge anyone’s mental health. Least of all Dawkins. You couldn’t carry his jockstrap.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:26 AM (EDT):

it is a scientific fact, not merely a matter of opinion, that men and women are designed in such a way that it is impossible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning their digity as human persons.

Not only is that not a fact but an opinion, it is an opinion that can be blown out of the water by simply asking gays if they feel demeaned or undignifide having sex with their partners. It really is their call. Isn’t it?

Posted by Ted Seeber on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 10:25 AM (EDT):

Bill S- you do realize you are just following the brain dead script of the damaged and mentally ill Richard Dawkins, right? But that is to be expected from somebody of your ridiculous and damaged culture, which contains far more lies than truth. Liberals always do.

Posted by Nancy on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 9:50 AM (EDT):

Bill, it is a scientific fact, not merely a matter of opinion, that men and women are designed in such a way that it is impossible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning their digity as human persons. All persons have the inherent right to be treated with dignity and respect in private and in public.

Mark, I was mistaken about the text my children had in High School, although none of them had heard of CCC 2359.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 8:51 AM (EDT):

There is no judgement, only fact. That same-sex acts are inherently undignified is a fact, not a judgement..

No, Ted. In order to determine if something is dignified or undignifide, someone, somewhere has to make a judgment. Your judgments are facts to you because that’s the way you are.

Posted by Pay on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 7:34 AM (EDT):

BillS,

Those involved in serious sin never want an unfulfilled desire. Nothing new.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Sep 12, 2013 6:49 AM (EDT):

Many do not want to hear the truth because then they have to stop doing what
they are doing. No surprise here.

Either that or many know the truth and that truth is that religous people don’t know what they’re talking about.

robert waligora wrote, “Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the same-sex lifestyle…”

There was rather more to it than that. The Lord said to Ezekiel, “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.”

Posted by Adam Rasmussen on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 4:15 PM (EDT):

““Primacy of conscience” is the all-excusing buzzword on the Left just as “prudential judgment’ is the all-excusing buzzword on the Right. Both mean, “Feel free to blow off the clear, obvious, and authoritative teaching of the Church if it harshes your mellow.”
Yes, this!

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:46 PM (EDT):

Many do not want to hear the truth because then they have to stop doing what they are doing. No surprise here.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:38 PM (EDT):

There is no judgement, only fact. That same-sex acts are inherently undignified is a fact, not a judgement.

That you are tired of being contradicted is a sign that you are wrong.

Posted by Dean on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:30 PM (EDT):

People are tired of this kind of talk. They’re not going to put up with it.

Right, they’ll become protestants, who, failing to believe in the revealed truth of God will believe *anything*.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:26 PM (EDT):

Since the Catholic Church was founded by God and is headed by God, it CAN and HAS THE DUTY to teach and proclaim the Truth universally. No one and nothing will prevent It from doing so simply because that is the WILL OF GOD HIMSELF.

People are tired of this kind of talk. They’re not going to put up with it.

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:25 PM (EDT):

Bill S,

Moral relativism is evil. Does this really need more explanation? Have we fallen so far now that even obvious things are unclear?

Posted by Nancy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:14 PM (EDT):

Regardless of desire or consent, one cannot separate our Dignity from who we are as human persons;sons, daughters, brothers, sisters,husbands, wives, fathers, mothers…In other words, regardless of desire or consent we remain a he or a she, not an object of sexual desire.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:08 PM (EDT):

Men and women are deigned in such a way that it is physically impossible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational dignity of those persons engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

That is a judgment that the people involved in a sexual act must make for themselves. It’s not a judgment to be made by you, me or anyone else. Why can’t you understand that?

Posted by Gladys H. Mariani on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:04 PM (EDT):

The Catholic Church proclaims and defends the religion of the universe; that is, the one, true way revealed by God Himself. The Head of the Catholic Church is Christ Himself. That is why, neither the World (with all of its institutions and yes, “churches”) nor the forces of hell combined can destroy it. That is objective truth and as such, it does not depend on whether individuals (such as Bill S and a million others) accept it or reject it. Since the Catholic Church was founded by God and is headed by God, it CAN and HAS THE DUTY to teach and proclaim the Truth universally. No one and nothing will prevent It from doing so simply because that is the WILL OF GOD HIMSELF. As for the evil of gay marriage, it is evil because God proclaimed it so; therefore, God’s Church is not free to proclaim otherwise. Actually, the Catholic’s Church inability to proclaim what God rejects is living proof of Its primacy as the true church founded by God. “Worldly” churches can distance themselves from God precisely because they are not headed by Christ. Anyone who thinks of himself/herself as a follower of Jesus and accepts teachings/philosophies that oppose what Jesus proclaims is a false prophet and a follower of either the World or Satan whether he/she is aware of it or not. No matter how strongly and loudly the primacy of the Catholic Church is denied, Its primacy stands. It stands not because of anything we, individual Catholics do or say, but because God heads It and nothing prevails against God.

Posted by Nancy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 3:00 PM (EDT):

Bill S, Men and women are deigned in such a way that it is physically impossible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational dignity of those persons engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:57 PM (EDT):

dig·ni·ty (dgn-t)
n. pl. dig·ni·ties
1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.
2. Inherent nobility and worth: the dignity of honest labor.
3.
a. Poise and self-respect.
b. Stateliness and formality in manner and appearance.
4. The respect and honor associated with an important position.
5. A high office or rank.
6. dignities The ceremonial symbols and observances attached to high office.
7. Archaic A dignitary.

Nope, non-procreative sex, of whatever form, doesn’t fit any of the 7 definitions.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:47 PM (EDT):

It would be true if you simply said: “any sexual act that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, is a human rights violation.”

It is not true when you specifically list same-sex sexual acts separately.

Posted by Nancy D. on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:38 PM (EDT):

Engaging in or condoning same sex-sexual acts or any sexual act that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, is a human rights violation.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:21 PM (EDT):

Bill S- Due to Nostra Aetate and the scientific method, the Catholic Church is scientific, and is thus universal. Atheism is not scientific nor rational, and you are not exhibiting rational behavior in this discussion or in your life.

You just want to deny science for political libertine relativism, a value you passed on to your children that has no value.

Posted by Nancy D. on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:21 PM (EDT):

Mark, although the full text may be available to anyone who wants it, it turns out that at the Catholic High School my children attended, this was the text that was used, thus the truth about the inherent essence of the human person, and God’s Salvational Love was omitted. Clearly if the U.S.C.C.B. was concerned about making sure that The Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex sexual attraction was clear, they would not have continued to post the erroneous document, “Always Our Children”, on their website.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 2:12 PM (EDT):

Bill S- The Catholic Church is the religion of the Universe- that’s why it is called CATHOLIC

I’ll only discuss this stupid remark. I will ignore what you said about my son because it isn’t worthy of a response.

Excuse me! I didn’t know that it is called CATHOLIC because it is “the religion of the universe”. I thought it was because, at the time, it was thought of as a universal religion, which it wasn’t and never will be. The religion of the universe. I’m impressed.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:58 PM (EDT):

Bill S- The Catholic Church is the religion of the Universe- that’s why it is called CATHOLIC.

You just don’t want Church teachings on marriage to be true because your own incompetence as a father turned your son homosexual. Nothing more than your own rebellion against truth and the universe.

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:57 PM (EDT):

Bill S,

The Church does not say that. The Church does not make up Truth. Relativists like you want to impose your rigid view on all of society. You foist this false idea that everyone gets to make up truth. That leads to tyranny as we are seeing right now.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:47 PM (EDT):

I think some is truth because it is true

That statement doesn’t make sense. Put it this way. The Catholic Church sets itself up in its followers’ minds as being the one source of all that is true. The universe doesn’t work that way.

At the present time, the Catholic Church can only tell its followers what they are to believe to be true. It can’t tell other people what is or isn’t true. It certainly can’t tell other people that gay marriage is wrong. It’s not the Catholic Church’s call.

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:34 PM (EDT):

Bill S,

I think some is truth because it is true. You seems to determine truth based on feelings and popular sentiment.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:20 PM (EDT):

It is evil. That is not an opinion, but an objective moral truth.

No. It’s definitely an opinion. You think something is an objective moral truth if the Catholic Church says it is. The world doesn’t work that way.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 1:02 PM (EDT):

It’s hard to believe anything objective about marriage when your religion was founded so the king could get a divorce and murder his ex-wife (wives).

It doesn’t matter how the Episcopal Church started, and it wasn’t so the king could murder his wives. It is a legitimate Christian denomination where gay couples are treated with much more respect.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:28 PM (EDT):

Bill S- you would think gay marriage was evil to if you were actually objective on this issue- which we both know full well that you can’t stand to evaluate gay marriage objectively due to your son.

Posted by Dean Cummings on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:19 PM (EDT):

Of course an Episcopalian wouldn’t think gay marriage was evil. It’s hard to believe anything objective about marriage when your religion was founded so the king could get a divorce and murder his ex-wife (wives).

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:16 PM (EDT):

Bill S,

It is evil. That is not an opinion, but an objective moral truth.

Posted by robert waligora on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:15 PM (EDT):

bill s…gay marriage is not only evil, its a marriage sanctioned in hell

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 12:02 PM (EDT):

you just want to ignore evil because it would make your life more complicated.

Gay marriage is not evil. You can’t get that into your thick scull.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:49 AM (EDT):

Nancy: It’s not “the Catechism”. It’s an abridged version. Abridged version of books leave out part of the book. You might question why this part and not that gets left out, but attributing it to a conspiracy is unnecessarily paranoid. The full text of the Catechism is still available for those who want it.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 11:20 AM (EDT):

Bill S- I believe Mark Shea addressed your attitude in the original text:
“(“Primacy of conscience” is the all-excusing buzzword on the Left just as “prudential judgment’ is the all-excusing buzzword on the Right. Both mean, “Feel free to blow off the clear, obvious, and authoritative teaching of the Church if it harshes your mellow.” Lots of people have been indoctrinated into both methods for ignoring the Church’s teaching and have no idea they’ve been sold a bill of goods. Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by ignorance.)”

Your real problem is that you want “to blow off the clear, obvious, and authoritative teaching of the Church if it harshes your mellow.” Don’t pretend this has anything to do with democracy or freedom- you just want to ignore evil because it would make your life more complicated.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:49 AM (EDT):

Protestant churches are good at using the democratic process to remove the stain of sin from offenses against God.
You say that to be derogatory, but perhaps that is a better way of looking at life. I think you might be on to something. Maybe that’s what makes this a better country than one whose government is run or heavily influenced by religious leaders.

Posted by robert waligora on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:39 AM (EDT):

that’s right bill s. keep them in their sinful lifestyle and let them suffer in hell for eternity…what is Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible for anyway?, or is just empty words. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the same-sex lifestyle and you just let the sinner stay as he is and live like a lost soul

Posted by pay on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:38 AM (EDT):

Bill S,

Guilt is there as a sign of a healthy conscience. Lack of guilt is sociopathy.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:35 AM (EDT):

Bill S- only a man who has lost the ability to discern right from wrong, temptation from act, and sin from virtue would see a “guilt trip” in Michael Voris’s words about a victim soul. Victims are NEVER guilty of what is done to them.

Posted by Dean on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:35 AM (EDT):

Protestant churches are good at using the democratic process to remove the stain of sin from offenses against God.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 10:28 AM (EDT):

Michael Voris is a sick man. I would never advise a gay to be a “victim soul”. Instead, I would direct them to a Christian church that embraces gays and does not lay a guilt trip on them for living a “disordered” lifestyle. I would assure them that they can find spiritual guidance in the Episcopal Church or any number of other Protestant denominations. I would tell them that God loves those people too. “Victim soul”. Give me a break.

Posted by Nancy on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 7:39 AM (EDT):

Mark, with all due respect,in a Time when clearly it is no mystery that there exists a group of persons who have left Christ’s Church spiritually, but have been permitted to remain within His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion as they lead many souls astray,why would it then be a mystery that the 2006-2007 edition of The Catechism is missing CCC 2359, making it appear that our sexual desires are inherent and thus cannot be transformed? God’s Salvational Grace and Mercy is available to all persons who desire not to be led into temptation. Only The Truth of Love can set us free.

Michel Foucault has rather drolly described the development of sexual orientation as a defining characteristic: “Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality… It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [My translation]

“Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality… “ That is what was new and it was very much a product of 19th century, largely German, psychology.

Posted by robert waligora on Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 5:58 AM (EDT):

all these political word play definitions on what to call gays or what they would like to be called..does not erase the FACT that ENGAGING in a homosexual act, is and always will be a MORTAL SIN..regardless of how much it is made a right by society.

Posted by enness on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:41 PM (EDT):

“So, it is going to be hard for many of us to develop a respectful, dignified, humanely way of relating to our ssa neighbors (I am using the term “neighbor” in the Christian sense), but this we must do if we want to be true followers of Christ.”
I don’t mean to pick on one person, but I think it’s not THAT hard. At least not harder than, say, realizing that terrorists and perpetrators of horrible crimes not only need but require our prayers. I am finding lately that the hardest part of engaging with anyone, harder perhaps even than having them insult you to your face, is that we must be prepared to have them listen very politely to our advice and perspective and then go about ignoring it all. But there’s a little pride behind that.

Posted by Shan G. on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:36 PM (EDT):

It seems clear from the huge amount of information available on the topic that some people with same-sex attraction identify with the gay agenda and some don’t. With the push from the gay community to equate sexual attraction with race, maybe being ‘gay’ is like being ‘Democrat’. If a homosexual rejects the gay agenda and supports traditional marriage, he may not feel real loved by members of the gay community. On the other hand, ask your African-American neighbor with the ‘Vote Republican’ yard sign how accepted and loved he is. Especially by progressive white folks. Just sayin’.

Posted by enness on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:45 PM (EDT):

“Many of us fear befriending homosexuals/lesbians for many legitimate reasons (fear of becoming objects of sexual attraction for them; fear of having to hear confidences about their sexual lives; fear of being expected to socialize with their homosexual friends or lovers; etc.)”
-
Wow, really? I mean, I can’t say that no such thought has gone through my mind (I don’t like confrontation), but I hesitate to call them legitimate fears. Looking at this logically:
- Why should I fear having lesbian friends or acquaintances more than straight male ones? They have a point when they say they’re not attracted to everyone, just like you and I are not attracted to everyone. I am indeed wary of making friends with men at times, but that has more than a little to do with a bad college experience that left me with a perspective that I’m very aware is warped.
- Again, why should I not fear straight friends since most of them seem to have a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend at some point? Is this enough justification for me to cut them all out of my life, or avoid making any friends in the first place unless they pass the Catholic Litmus Test?
- Expectations to socialize: ah yes, heaven forbid. Seriously, TMI and PDA can be obnoxious coming from anybody.
Look, I realize it’s a fine line to walk sometimes when you don’t want to inadvertently condone anything. But these so-called “legitimate” fears just don’t make sense. We’re not obliged to act like they might be carrying some contagious Martian plague rather than treating them like any other human being.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:27 PM (EDT):

I appreciate your linking to the word “gay.” Interesting stuff, but not terribly relevant to our discussion. But, nevertheless, thank you. And best to you in your journey with Christ.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:22 PM (EDT):

It is never, ever, compassionate to lie, but it sure is nice to take the easy way out. SSA is no worse than my own autism, I never said it was alone among mental disorders. I gave you the link to the history of the word Gai/Gay in the Oxford English Dictionary, if you have not read the link then I suggest you quell your useless emotionalism and start discussing things like an adult.

Being compassionate is about willing good for the other, and remaining in the level of ignorance you have displayed in this discussion is not good.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:14 PM (EDT):

Ted, you are apparently looking to simply disgree. Censorship? Hardly; you can continue using “homosexual” to your heart’s content. Lying? You seem to be packing a lot of freight onto one little word, but I get the feeling you’re convinced you’re right, so, again, knock yourself out. SSA a mental disorder? Now that’s a good one—a complete adoption of a secular category to describe something that our theology tells us is one disorder among many and that, like other disorders, must be resisted. But hey, once again, if you’re happier with modern psychological categories than traditional biblical/theological categories, then have at it. French word for joy? I sincerely doubt that is the genesis of the word as it is used in poliitcal discourse. Compassion? You don’t sound very compassionate. But hey, like C.S. Lewis said in anothet context, I could be wrong.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 9:04 PM (EDT):

Andy, you are not asking for nice, you are asking for censorship and lying. “Gay” is first and foremost a lie to cover up the ugly truth of same sex attraction; that it is a mental disorder that fails to match the hard reality of gender. I can feel compassion for a sick man doing everything in his power to get better, God sends us such so that we may learn compassion. But the easy lie that same sex attraction is not disordered by hiding it behind the French word for joy? That is a lie, and I consider lying to be a worse sin than hurting people’s feelings.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 8:56 PM (EDT):

“Mark, do you believe God created us according to sexual orientation?”

Nancy: I don’t even know what this question means. If you are trying to say that it is impossible that people are born with a disordered sexual appetite, I simply note that since people are born with all sorts of other disorders I see no particular reason why they can’t be born with a disordered sexual appetite too. I also see no reason why being born with something necessarily makes it good. Fetal alchohol syndrome is something people are born with. That doesn’t make it a gift.

If somebody self-identifies as “gay as far back as I can remember” I’m not going to argue with their experience. The fact is, we don’t really know the origins of SS attraction, just as we we don’t really know the origins of many other psychosexual disorders.

Dale’s explanation, by the way, makes sense of your concern about the Catechism. What you are really doing is seeing behind the fact of an abridged Catechism—that frankly *calls* itself an abridged Catechism—a shadowy cabal of gay conspiracy. What I see is… an abridged Catechism. Mystery solved.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 8:27 PM (EDT):

Theodore, avoiding hurt feelings is not a vice. St Paul counseled becoming all things to all men. Certainly, adopting the word “gay” in our friendships and dealings with SS people is not a big deal. I’m sorry you think it is.

Posted by Dale on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 7:48 PM (EDT):

@Nancy D,
Following the link you posted, it appears you asked why passage 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church did not appear in the published book titled “United States Catholic Catechism for Adults.”

Carl E. Olson, who is editor of Catholic World Report, as well as editor of the website you linked, replied to your question: —“Nancy: If every paragraph in the CCC was replicated in the USCCA (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults), then it would be the CCC and there would be no reason for the USCCA! The USCCA is, as the Introduction notes, an “adaptation” of the CCC. It is meant, I think, to be a shorter and more accessible Catechism; whether or not is indeed more accessible is open to debate, I suppose (I like some features of it, but prefer the CCC for a variety of reasons), but to think (as your question suggests) that parts of the CCC were “omitted” because of some nefarious agenda is puzzling. After all, the USCCA is about 600 pages length, and the CCC is 900 pages long, which means that large sections of the CCC have been “omitted”—if that’s the approach you want to take.”—

A quick look at the US Catholic Catechism for Adults (via Google Books) shows that the USCCA is not a point by point copy of the catechism, but something entirely different. It is a broad summary of sections of the catechism, supplemented by discussion questions, prayers, meditations etc. The book wasn’t intended to hit every single passage of the catechism, and couldn’t possibly do so, given its style.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 7:47 PM (EDT):

Andy- thought control is always the first part of any destructive revolution, that’s why same sex attracted people are offended by the word homosexual and have instead adopted the French word for unbridled happiness.

I don’t care if I do sound like a “rube” to a liberal elite urbanite- I consider most of them to be idiots to be ignored as well, so I guess we’re pretty evenly matched. For that matter, I consider homosexuals to be severely damaged with respect to their understanding of basic biology, and no amount of preaching to them is going to change that basic lack of information.

I suggest that is what you are attempting to do- reduce the conversation to hurt feelings instead of keeping it clinical and detached. The way out is to be clinical and detached, and thus learn information instead of being so ignorant. I had to be about my autism, and you need to be about same sex attraction.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 7:40 PM (EDT):

Theodore, even granting, for the sake of argument that “homosexual” is more objective, so what? It’s a word that offends most gays (and most everyone else), is not rooted in our biblical or theological tradition, and doesn’t mean anything unless it’s explained—I.e., the “homo” part can grammatically denote male or man, meaning the word doesn’t mean “same-sex attracted” except by convention. Keep using it if it makes you feel better. I’m trying to give you an out so that you don’t continue sounding like a rube who people feel they can safely ignore.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 7:29 PM (EDT):

Andy- the word “gay” has been around for centuries, but only in the last 70 years or so has it meant homosexual:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gay

as for the meaning of the word objective- I did take some liberty, but I’d certainly consider clinical and detached to be equivalent to not influenced by personal feeling or opinions:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/objective?q=objective

And while homosexual only precedes gay by a few decades (the common was “desires against nature” before that) I would certainly consider it the more objective term.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 7:22 PM (EDT):

Theodore: Care to cite what dictionary defines objective as “clinical and detached”? I’ll put the same question to you Pay: Why are you so wed to a word that didn’t exist until 150 years ago? The word “homosexual” is not sacrosanct. *It’s just a word*, and it has no more claim on reality than “gay.”

Posted by Nancy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 6:57 PM (EDT):

One would think that,each and every one of us,would reject any term that sexually objectifies the human person because such terms are not respectful of the personal and relational Dignity of the human person.

I remain skeptical of your claim. It’s right there in the current text of the Catechism on the Vatican website. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Posted by Theodore Seeber on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 3:29 PM (EDT):

Maybe Courage needs to add, as a devotion, blogging about the experience

Posted by Nancy D. on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 3:27 PM (EDT):

Mark, sorry, to clarify my statement I should have stated that CCC 2359 was left out of the 2006-2007 Edition of The Catholic Catechism, making it appear as if a same-sex sexual attraction is inherent and not a disordered sexual attraction that can be transformed.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 3:11 PM (EDT):

Pay, you said that words “are meant to convey reality” and you asked the question, “How many realities are there?” This last question implies that “homsexual” and “gay” are contenders for two visions of reality, but they aren’t. One of those words—gay—is what most people mean these days by what people meant 20 years ago by the word “homosexual.” You insistence that “homosexual” reflects *reality* is an ontological statement that simply is unsupported. Today, people who insist on using “homosexual” don’t sound objective; *they* sound like the one with the political axe to grind. You *lose* our audience using such a word; you don’t convince them of anything. It’s like when someone says I’m “anti-choice”; I stop listening b/c they’re acting a like bu&&head;. Don’t be like them.

Posted by Gladys H. Mariani on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:57 PM (EDT):

To eddie: I disagree. Same-sex attraction is the more accurate term to use as it covers both, males and females. Otherwise, you would have to use ” homosexuals (men) and lesbians (women)” in order to be technically accurate. As for heterosexual fornication and/or adultery versus same-sex adultery/fornication, the former is biologically natural while the latter is not. To recognize the biological naturalness of an action does not in anyway signify acceptance of the action. God Himself created us male and female and equipped each sex with the proper biological equipment to procreate. Heterosexual fornication and/or adultery and God-encouraged sexual intercourse are both biologically natural actions, but the former is sinful and the latter is not. Don’t forget that even within the framework of a Christianly instituted marriage, heterosexual intercourse could be sinful and disordered, despite being biologically natural, if the sexual act is performed out of lust.

Posted by pay on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:52 PM (EDT):

Andy,

Homosexual and heterosexual are not used as insults. They did come about in a rational way to explain what really is. The obfuscating term “gay” tries to cover up what it really is about.

I never mentioned ontology. I mentioned propaganda. That is what it is. Kool Aid drinking abounds.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:33 PM (EDT):

JMJ, How do you think Homosexual Jones feels? Talk about a bummer of a first name. And, full disclosure, JMJ is totally right: it was little ole’ me who coined the term “gay” back in the 80s, and it caught on…

Posted by JMJ on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 2:11 PM (EDT):

To misuse the term ‘gay’ as you are doing is an insult to normal people that have Gay as their name or part of their name. They are homosexuals that need the healing power of Jesus to overcome their death (not life) styles. Prior to the 80’s, when someone said the word gay, it was meant to be something wonderful, now, you are using it for something that is horrible and disgusting; such a shame and a lie of the evil one. +JMJ+

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 1:53 PM (EDT):

Pay, St. Paul did not use Greek equivalent of “homosexual” in Romans 1 or 1 Timothy b/c there was no Greek equivalent for that word. It’s a made-up, modern, post-enlightment word, transliterated from German in the 1800s. Why do you insist on giving it such ontological significance when it doesn’t have such significance?
“Gay” has its problems, but it hardly comes festooned with rainbow banners and feathers like you’re trying to argue.

Posted by pay on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:58 PM (EDT):

Corita,

How many realities are there?

Why does the Courage Apostalate discourage using the word “gay”?

I never said language was dogma, but language can develop organically or it can be used as a propaganda tool as I have pointed out.

Posted by eddie too on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:53 PM (EDT):

the term “same-sex attracted” seems to be factually descriptive and politically neutral. i prefer it to either “homosexual” or “gay”. on another note, i would argue that heterosexual fornication and adultery are not natural to human beings. i believe God created human beings to be monogamous. it is unnatural for human beings to engage in adultery or fornication, even with a member of the opposite sex. finally, i suggest that we are more prudent to lump together all sexual activity that occurs outside of a permanent and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman; and, to address these illicit sexual activities, when discussing them with others, as a single teaching. for example, the RC teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage is socially damaging, seriously disordered and mortally sinful. i see no reason to single out same-sex sexual acts when discussing sexual morality. it seems to me, to separate them out risks the danger of minimizing the evil of opposite-sex sexual sins and provides us with nothing of any particular benefit in singleing them out.

Posted by Nancy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:59 AM (EDT):

Identifying oneself or another as an object of sexual desire in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, is not, an can never be part of The Language of Love. All that is Good and beautiful is ordered to The Communion of Perfect Complementary Love that Is The Blessed Trinity, without Whom the Earth would be a “formless void as darkness covered the face of the deep”. We can thank God for The Light of Love, without which, there would be nothing.

Posted by Daniel on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:58 AM (EDT):

We’ll be hearing “Hello, I’m Catholic and I am a pedophile” in ten years if we continue believing the fallacy that homosexuality is a biological condition and not a life-style choice.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:48 AM (EDT):

If you are so committed to the idea that “words matter” then stop using words like “gay”, “too many” and “political” in a loose and undefined manner.

Words help us to convey truth, not “a reality”. “A reality” is another loose term that can have many meanings, and you undermine your thesis just by talking about it like this, as if there are many realities. Which, depending on how you use the word “realities”, is true.

Language is not the same as dogma. Words are not themselves Truth, except for the One True and Perfect Word, the only one ever spoken. All other words help us to clarify or obfuscate truth. And part of truth is the intention of the person speaking. A person who uses the term -gay- might mean something other than what is heard by the listener, or by 75 out of 100 others using the same word, but that does not *by itself* negate the legitimacy of the word, its speaker, the listener OR the intended meaning.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:48 AM (EDT):

Nancy: What are you talking about? It’s right there: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2359

Posted by pay on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:30 AM (EDT):

Corita,

“Gay” is certainly a political word. That too many do not realize it cannot change the fact. “Straight” is another silly word. There is no good reason why people must go along with nonsense just because many people do.

Words do matter. They are meant to convey reality.

In a recent essay at crisismagazinedotcom a very smart man (James Kalb) wrote:

“Under such circumstances truth eventually evaporates, since thought and language become more and more arbitrary, and what’s left is a battle of wills.”

That is exactly true. We no longer understand how important language and idea are.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 11:07 AM (EDT):

The national director of Courage has recently spoken out encouraging people not to identify as “gay”. Posting a link was blocked here but it can be found on the website of the Cardinal Newman Society.

Regardless of other connotations, one of the primary problems with the notion of “gay” or even homosexual is that it leads the person to erroneously identify their sexual attractions with their personhood, their self-identity, their self worth. This is not a good thing and can lead to the person and their self worth feeling attacked when speaking of the disordered nature of SSA, encouraging chastity; and thus arguably makes acceptance of Jesus and His teaching more difficult, for following Jesus would then seem like an attack or contradiction to the false self-identity that has been constructed.

Posted by Nancy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:41 AM (EDT):

The fact that CCC 2359 is missing from The Catechism of The Catholic Church, is evidence enough, that there is a group of persons who do not desire that The Catholic Church’s teaching on Salvation, that God’s transforming Grace and Mercy is available to all persons, regardless of their disordered inclinations, be known. Why would those persons responsible for Catechesis omit this crucial teaching, unless they desired to create chaos and confusion in regardless to the inherent nature of God’s Salvational transforming Love?

Posted by Therese Z on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:34 AM (EDT):

“Mr. Shea, do you really know many people who feel compelled to follow up a first handshake with somebody by asking whether they are gay or straight? I’ve lived a relatively long life and have never encountered such a person.”

Every media interviewer does exactly that - we are so used to the celebrity cult of television, made MUCH worse as cable channels multiply the noise and pressure to get eyes on the screen. We listen to interviewers ask questions that no polite person should ever ask, about marital fidelity, sexual orientation, etc. And the faux sympathy oozing from them coaxes the responses.

It’s no wonder general people feel they can proclaim these facts, because they think the rest of the world is interested.

It is amazing how many individuals miss the argument here on this topic. It is not discussions on, charity, chastity, dignity of human person, being mean to your brother or sister, etc…Mark touched on it briefly with his “Lustful Catholic” comments.. yes the cliche holds, “Words Matter”. It seems to be profoundly wrong to give “Identity” to oneself by virtue of what flutters around in our sinful minds, especially in the areas of sin and especially if you are a Christian. What temptations and thoughts enter your head are no more under your control than gravity..the outcomes from those thoughts ARE under your control, granted those outcomes can be a difficult struggle for individuals. However, when life is tough and you don’t want to eat your “Broccoli” (In this case Spiritual Broccoli) Mom had even more sage advice,remember there are “Starving Children in Africa”.

If I identified with every morbid thought or unwanted feeling in my head and proclaimed to the world as such my newfound identity…“Here this is what I am this hour, this minute, or forever, etc”, I would need to be hospitalized. When I entered the church and went to my first confession, I asked the priest about unwanted, impure or down-right evil thoughts that enter my head and what to do about it? He told me, the first best practice is to “Swat them away like pesky flies”. Wise.

To give legitimacy to sexual lusts or any compulsions by grafting them on to the human person as if they are some kind of biological material zoological category therefore “legitimate” is clearly arbitrary and because it is so, giving legitimacy over this compulsion vs that one, (There are many) is playing into the secular hand. We should not partake in it. I fall with Mark on leaving people alone in this area if it is not brought up for public conversation and we do not need to pass laws to persecute people’s private sexual sins. However, “Gay” and even “Homosexual” are very well thought out propagandized “Secular Terms”, one is a “Secular Pop Culture” term, that spun a word meaning joyful and lighthearted (Clearly Carefully Chosen) and the other is “Quasi-Scientific” term meant to give legitimacy via a Scientific Lens. (Science is the study of the physical world…and despite millions of dollars of studies, there is still no “Gay Gene”)

Now Same-Sex Attraction? That works in the Christian/Catholic Context. Some people may think this is a small point but to ignore it in my opinion is yet one more big step backward into the Jody Bottum Gameplan of “Re-Enchanting the Culture”. The adversary will not cede ground that you give up…I learned as a six year old playing checkers with my dad.

We as Christians do not believe our compulsions define us as human beings and therefore we should set the example. Sure we may talk about them, as we talk about “The Struggle” in that context.

I am not a whole host of things that go through my brain day in and day out and I refuse to let pop-culture and “Science” define me as such.

Since many people are completely confused on this topic altogether, besides the Ten Commandments it is also best go look at Judeo-Christian History?

Dennis Prager has a wonderful paper on why the Jews and later thus the Christians followed God’s law and did not conform to “Public Square Sexuality” which was the norm in most ancient civilizations…and as the pagans adopted that Judeo-Christian practice civilization flourished. Read here http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

Posted by Dale on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:22 AM (EDT):

Mark, I can not directly respond to the reader whose comments you opened your article, therefore I will have to take up some of your combox space. Sorry ‘bout that.

I don’t think the Rainbow Sash Movement, about which your reader expressed concern, has more than a trickle of support among gay Catholics. I say this for a couple reasons: only a handful of diocese have such a movement, and in those which do, very few parishes are affected by it. Generally, it seems the RSM only emerges when it wants to confront the local bishop in some high profile manner e.g. Easter at Holy Name Cathedral. My sense is that the cultural prominence of the RSM far exceeds the number of their actual followers.

Okay, that said, I did want to respond to something Mark wrote:—-
“I know I hate it when the Inquisitors come out off the woodwork to accuse me when I confess a weakness or struggle with some sin or temptation, so I refuse to do it to others.”—-
Yep.

Okay, this is the internet, which isn’t known for politeness or charity, but when someone admits a failing and desire to do better, all too often the response of commenters is anything but Christian. Too often it resembles the feeding-frenzy of sharks. I am saddened by such behavior, especially when it comes from persons to consider themselves to orthodox Catholics.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 10:12 AM (EDT):

“Gay” is not a political code-word. It is now a commonly-used word with a basic meaning that people agree on.
.
You cannot wield that Catechism passage as “proof” that people aren’t allowed to use the term gay.

There *is* a huge problem of making human identity tied to desire, or the shapes that desire takes. But that is a huge problem, not contained in one word, and it is certainly not up to same-sex-attracted folks to bear the burden of alone on top of everything else.
.
Straight folks obsessed with what SSA folks call themselves need to put their energies into figuring out how they, personally, can work to resist the crushing of human identity into something wholly described by attraction and consent.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 9:33 AM (EDT):

Pay, it doesn’t matter if you agree with me regarding that homosexual was originally a pejorative term b/c it was, in fact, originally a pejorative term. The word “Christian” was originally a pejorative term, right? Now, “Christian” is just a descriptor for someone who has been baptized (or identifies with Christianity in some inchoate way). I can’t force you to stop using the term “homosexual,” but you should know that that term is not the objective descriptor you think it is—it’s clinical, it’s detached, and it’s offensive to many gay people. This last reason—it’s offensiveness to gays—is something that should grab your attention. I don’t like it when people say I’m “anti-choice” b/c I’m not anti-choice, I’m anti-abortion. I’m all about giving the baby choices, In a similar way, you simply show respect for your gay friends (I hope you have some) by referring to them in ways that don’t offend them.
I don’t like the term “gay” either, as it took a unique adjective from our vocabulary and left a void. But, Pay, I suspect that none of your friends—gay or straight—are going to think that you of all people have bought into the “gay agenda” if you start using the word “gay.”

Posted by pay on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 8:37 AM (EDT):

Andy,

I do not agree that homosexual is a pejorative term. It is descriptive. Gay is a political code word. Who cares? People who do not embrace “gay” propaganda. Do not drink the Kool Aid.

Posted by Samuel Ferraro on Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 4:59 AM (EDT):

Something isn’t quite right with Michael Voris. He seems like a self promoter.

Posted by Gladys H. Mariani on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 11:30 PM (EDT):

I agree with you, Rosemarie…but probably, faithful Catholics who happen to bear the cross of same-sex attraction feel intimidated by the “gay lobby” too.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 11:21 PM (EDT):

Being chaste begins with repecting the truth about the inherent essence of the human person, who, from the moment of their creation at conception, has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 11:17 PM (EDT):

Rosemarie, desire or consent, does not change the fact that we we are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers; our call to holiness has always been a call to Love one another in communion with God, according to The Word of God, The Truth of Love. Learning to Love oneself and others in The Spirit of authentic Love is experiencing the Life affirming and transforming Love of The Blessed Trinity.

Posted by Rosemarie Kury on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 11:01 PM (EDT):

When I was working, there were two gay individuals. The woman was ok but the guy kept making references to it, even bringing his friends to the office to meet for lunch. Our company embraced diversity, and although most of us felt uncomfortable, if we had said something, you could have been fired. I’m against gay marriage, but do feel that now theres too much emphasis on being gay. What upsets me is that as a group, they’re persecuting people who don’t believe in their agenda. Christians who own businesses such as photographers, bakers and florists are being fined or imprisoned if they refuse to do business with them. Why don’t these individuals just use someone else? I liked your column Mark, and agree that this indeed is a cross to bear. It would be nice though that if openly gay Catholic people who are trying to live a chaste life and for that matter others, protest against this type of discrimination against businesses who are against gay marriage.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 10:00 PM (EDT):

Regarding The Word of God and The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, we cannot transform Christ, The Word of Love, Christ transforms us.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 8:20 PM (EDT):

Pay, I agree as to origins of terms, but sometimes words just become words. For instance, I refuse to say “Pro-choice” but always “pro abortion rights.” I think that accurately states the position in a non-idelogical way. But “gay” is no longer propaganda, IMHO. It’s just descriptive. “Homosexual” didn’t exist until the 1800s, and it was developed as pejorative, anti-same-sex attraction term, so it too has propandantist roots. “Gay”...who cares?

Posted by Pay on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 7:50 PM (EDT):

Andy,

The use of terms such as gay, marriage equality, pro choice, homophobe did not develop organically. They are part of propaganda. That so many easily accept the poison is a real shame. Words should reflect reality not be used to obfuscate and misdirect.

Posted by chris awo on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 5:47 PM (EDT):

Another question for the catholic gay movement: why the RAINBOW?
.
“When the Lord saw how wicked everyone on earth was and how evil their thoughts were all the time, 6 he was sorry that he had ever made them and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret 7 that he said, “I will wipe out these people I have created, and also the animals and the birds, because I am sorry that I made any of them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”
(Genesis 6 v 5-8)
.
” Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I set my BOW in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the RAINBOW is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the RAINBOW is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”
(Genesis 9 v 8-17)
.
Are you thumping your noses at your Creator ( and sticking out your tongues too) and daring Him to go against His word (symbolized by the RAINBOW) and to destroy you?
Now is the time to work out our salvation with repentance and penance, because the night will soon come when ‘no man can work’.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 5:45 PM (EDT):

Three things: (1) the word “homosexual” didn’t get coined in English until the 1800s. Therefore, there is nothing particularly true or descritive or valid in the word “homosexual” that doesn’t also exist in the word “gay.” The word “gay” is now the coin of the realm. To insist on “homosexual” is like insisting on the word “negro” to describe African Americans—you end up sounding, gratuitously, like a bigot; (2) I’m bummed that the word “gay” no longer means “cheerful,” “lighthearted.” We’ve lost a unique word, which is a shame; (3) Voris has an amazing head of hair, kind of like Blagojevich.

Posted by chris awo on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 5:14 PM (EDT):

i wish the members of the Rainbow Sash Movement would meditate on the following scriptural passages before jumping in their effort to change the Church teaching on homosexuality.
.
“Who can ever learn the will of God? 14 Human reason is not adequate for the task, and our philosophies tend to mislead us, 15 because our mortal bodies weigh our souls down. The body is a temporary structure made of earth, a burden to the active mind. 16 All we can do is make guesses about things on earth; we must struggle to learn about things that are close to us. Who, then, can ever hope to understand heavenly things?” {cf Wisdom 9 v 13)
.
“Lord, you have examined me and you know me.
2 You know everything I do;
from far away you understand all my thoughts
.............
Your knowledge of me is too deep;
it is beyond my understanding”
(Psalm 139 v 2 & 6)
.
If your Creator says don’t do something; is it not possible that could be the best advice you could ever get? The fear of God is indeed the beginning of wisdom

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 3:23 PM (EDT):

God would never Bless or curse anyone with a disordered sexual attraction of any nature. God desires that all His sons and daughters, including those who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction, learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are a reflection of authentic Love and thus respectful of the personal and relational Dignity of the human person, who, from the moment of creation at conception, has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter.

Posted by pay on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 2:58 PM (EDT):

Phil,

You are correct. “Gay” is a contrived political word. It is obfuscation.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 2:47 PM (EDT):

Mark, with all due respect, in order to be morally pure in thought and conduct, you must see yourself and others as God created us to be,sons and daughters who have an inherent right to be treated with dignity and respect in private as well as in public.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 2:27 PM (EDT):

Identifying oneself or someone else according to sexual attraction/inclination sexually objectifies the human person, and is a violation of God’s commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. To suggest that we have been created from the moment of conception, according to sexual orientation, and not as a son or daughter,is a lie from the start.

Posted by Phil on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 2:24 PM (EDT):

Mark, you apparently do have a pronoun problem: A singular subject requires a singular pronoun, as in “When I meet somebody for the first time, I don’t feel any immediate impulse to regale (them) with my sexual history.” “Them” is plural; “somebody” is singular. This is a pre-emptive grammatical cringe to appease radical feminists, for whom the default male pronoun is unacceptable. That it is de rigueur in the secular world should not make it okay for you.

Your noun problem is that you use an artificial term that homosexual activists have set for themselves, “gay.” You don’t have to do this. You do it voluntarily. It is nowhere to be found in the Catechism, for example. The correct term is homosexual. Those who employ the word “gay” accept the self-designation of an overwhelmingly anti-Christian movement. That it is accepted by the secular world that is at war with the Faith should not be good enough for you.

Posted by Donald Link on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 2:00 PM (EDT):

Most interesting. As a hetrosexual working is a profession with a large number of gay individuals, it is my observation, and apparently theirs also, that simply going to work every day and avoiding the obvious soapbox displays such as pride day badges etc, engendered a level of tolerance and non-offensiveness that enabled an effecient and mutually civil workplace. I might add that this could also apply to religion and politics, issues which seem to create their share of workplace stess. As a matter of interest, I saw one survey that put the number of supposedly gay clegy at about 30%. In view of the lack of widespread notoriety, it would seem that if this is accurate, most are celebate and feel little need to comment on their sexual orientation; behavior that certainly could be widely emulated.

Posted by Gladys H. Mariani on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 1:01 PM (EDT):

Mr. Shea, do you really know many people who feel compelled to follow up a first handshake with somebody by asking whether they are gay or straight? I’ve lived a relatively long life and have never encountered such a person. I asked a couple of friends and they’ve never met such a person. I have never met anyone who felt compelled to tell me about an issue with heterosexual lustfulness and my friends have not either. However, we have all met some (very few) people who have volunteered information about their homosexual orientation pretty early on in that period of acquaintanceship. In short, in our experience, it seems that only homosexuals are prone to make announcements or pronouncements about their sexual orientations. Why that is, I have but a little clue. For instance, I have been told that many homosexuals feel that hiding their orientation renders all of their relations with heterosexuals fake-ish. The reason that they never feel “safe” within any relationship with heterosexuals while their same-sex orientation is hidden is because they are always wondering when the roof is going to come down on them; that is, the point at which the beloved heterosexual friend, or acquaintance, or coworker, or relaive will back away from the treasured relationship either silently, or violently vociferously, upon discovering their homosexual orientation. Therefore, some homosexuals prefer to bring the issue out in the open at the first opportunity in order to avoid a deeper pain down the road. In any event, we all need to take a big breath and try to develop, always prayerfully and under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, our own personal, unique way of dealing with the PERSON whose sexual orientation is same-sex directed in a way that conforms to our professed Christian faith. It will not be easy. Many of us feel an instinctive repulsion of same-sex acts. Many of us fear befriending homosexuals/lesbians for many legitimate reasons (fear of becoming objects of sexual attraction for them; fear of having to hear confidences about their sexual lives; fear of being expected to socialize with their homosexual friends or lovers; etc.). Many of us accept the fact that acting out on same-sex impulses/desires is not only gravely sinful, but unnatural (something that does not hold for heterosexual adultery, for example, which is gravely sinful, but not unnatural). So, it is going to be hard for many of us to develop a respectful, dignified, humanely way of relating to our ssa neighbors (I am using the term “neighbor” in the Christian sense), but this we must do if we want to be true followers of Christ.

Posted by Mariann on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 11:34 AM (EDT):

Nice job Mark! Thanks for including Michael Voris.

Posted by Tim on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 9:42 AM (EDT):

It gives me tremendous security to know someone is a “reconciling Catholic.” It just seems like we can overcome our fallen nature when we acknowledge the cross. What someone is confessing is TMI. Mercy, mercy, mercy!

Posted by Dean on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 9:23 AM (EDT):

The US Bishops have weighed in on whether chaste gay Catholics should self-identify as “gay”:

<<<The problem with treating “sexual orientation” as a description of a class of people is that it proposes a deeply flawed anthropology, or understanding of the human person. Christian anthropology teaches that each person is called to accept his or her sexual identity as a man or as a woman (Catechism, no. 2333). This is consistent with the understanding that man – male and female – is a unity of body and soul (Catechism, no. 362-368). Our identity as human persons is intimately connected with our identity as a man or as a woman. In short, the body matters.

What the language of “sexual orientation” does, anthropologically, is separate one’s identity from one’s bodily nature as a man or woman, placing a premium on one’s desires and inclinations. The body then becomes a “bottom layer” – essentially meaningless matter – over which one’s “real” identity – comprised of desires and inclinations – is super-imposed.>>>

The flawed anthropology of “sexual orientation” & the need for a renewal of anthropology and chastity

evan… I know that..but the homosexual of today wants the world to accept the immoral lifestyle as acceptable, not only to his eyes, but to the eyes of God also..Its not picking on homosexuals..just like it says in Scripture..no adulterer, no thief, no homosexual..etc..will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The person MUST stop the sinful act or will probably face a LONG purgatory or the same fate as satan…I am not picking on homosexuals or any other lifestyle, but don’t proclaim an immoral lifestyle as being acceptable when Scripture clearly says “Its an UN-NATURAL act”

Posted by MCD on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 9:12 AM (EDT):

Robert: I see you are choosing to ignore the BRANCH in your own eye. Your hateful comments are the type that send those faithful people with SSA away from the Church because they have lost hope that they will be treated like the respect, compassion, and sensitivity that we hope for ourselves. We are all sinners, yet our job here is to encourage each other in truth and love, not to berate a particular group of people who share the same temptation. I will speak the truth in love for you: Repent of your pride and seek to serve your fellow sinners, if you want to be closer to Jesus and to heaven.

Posted by Evan on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 8:49 AM (EDT):

Robert Waligora: an homosexual inclination is not evil in itself; it’s a temptation and acting upon it is sinful. Your opening analogies are confusing temptations with actual sin. Admitting one struggles with a certain concupiscence can be a good way for some people to resist those temptations.
...
CCC 2358: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity…”

Posted by robert waligora on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 8:32 AM (EDT):

if a homosexual wants to boast it should be in saying “I am an “EX-homosexual”.......

Posted by robert waligora on Monday, Sep 9, 2013 8:11 AM (EDT):

its a shame that gays walk around proclaiming like a “badge of honor” that they are homosexual…does a bank robber go about proclaiming “I rob banks”...does an adulterer proclaim “I cheat on my spouse”....instead of bellowing to the world their moral depravity, they should cast themselves on their feet and ask God to save them from their wicked lifestyle. One more thing..you homosexuals are NOT born gay…you ARE born with FREE WILL..the same FREE WILL that satan had..satan was the most beautiful angel in Heaven, BUT his free will in choosing disobedience to God caused him Eternal Damnation..the same choice faces homosexuals..THEY WERE NOT CREATED HOMOSEXUALS FOR THAT WOULD MEAN GOD CREATED EVIL..they were given the freedom to choose to act as they wish..and choosing to act contrary to Gods MORAL law, is the same free will that satan choose..to choose purity or moral depravity is ones free will choice. The homosexual lifestyle is nothing more than satans attempt to dishonor the Purity and Holiness of the marriage of Blessed Mary and St. Joseph..so get off your “I was born this way” mantra..God does not create Evil… your FREE WILL CHOICE CREATED THE EVIL

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.